GoodRx and Pharmacy Benefit Manager (No. II)
The GoodRx and Pharmacy Benefit Manager Antitrust Litigation (No. II) brings together claims alleging that arrangements between GoodRx and pharmacy benefit managers restrained price competition in the market for prescription drugs, affecting both consumers who used discount-card pricing and pharmacies operating under PBM-negotiated terms. The JPML centralized the docket before Judge Mary S. McElroy in the District of Rhode Island in April 2025 to coordinate pretrial proceedings across the pending actions rather than litigate overlapping theories about the same arrangements in separate districts; 32 actions are currently before the court.
Duration and resolution risk here will likely turn on how the court treats two potentially distinct claimant populations — consumer purchasers and pharmacy participants — each of which may require its own class-certification analysis and damages model given how differently a discount-card arrangement affects a retail consumer compared to a pharmacy's reimbursement stream. Resolving whether those populations proceed together or on separate tracks, and what economic model each requires to show common impact, is typically the threshold question that shapes how long a pricing-arrangement antitrust docket like this one takes to move toward resolution. Discovery into how GoodRx's discount-card pricing actually interacted with each PBM's negotiated rates will likely be central to answering that question, since the theory depends on showing a coordinated restraint rather than parallel but independent business decisions.
This is the kind of structural distinction Criterica Intelligence's Regulated Outcomes Intelligence platform is designed to surface — not a prediction of outcome, but a clear read on how a docket's claimant structure and certification posture drive its timeline. A docket still resolving foundational questions about class structure this early typically carries more duration uncertainty than one further along, and remand risk rises if certification is denied for either claimant population. Criterica Intelligence applies this same structural lens across every active MDL, including newer, less-publicized dockets like this one.
It reflects that this is a distinct MDL from an earlier, differently structured proceeding involving related pharmacy-pricing issues; it was independently centralized before Judge Mary S. McElroy in April 2025.
A bellwether is a representative case tried early to inform how similar claims might resolve. This docket has not yet reached that stage — it remains in early pretrial and certification-related proceedings.
The court may split them into separate tracks with distinct damages models, or certification could be denied for one or both groups, which would reshape the docket's path and timeline.
No. Criterica Intelligence describes the docket's structure and what will likely drive its timeline — not a predicted outcome, settlement figure, or win rate for consumers, pharmacies, or the defendants.
Statistics shown reflect historical or illustrative model outputs derived from real case data. They are not predictions or guarantees of any individual outcome. Litigation results depend on facts, jurisdiction, judge, and counsel, and vary case by case. Model accuracy is subject to selection effects and changing legal dynamics.